If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Senate)   The actual new & crazy legislation from NYS. Fark might have to create a New York tag   (open.nysenate.gov) divider line 231
    More: Asinine, New York, aggravated murder, order of protection, for sale by owner, revocations, minimum sentence, third degree, registered owner  
•       •       •

3611 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jan 2013 at 1:44 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



231 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-15 03:46:23 PM

cameroncrazy1984: sugar_fetus: Philip Francis Queeg:
And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?

What harm do flash suppressors do? Do they make the weapon more dangerous?

No?

Then why go through the idiocy of banning them?

They're not banning flash suppressors. They're banning weapons capable of taking flash suppressors, which is easier than naming off make and models of weapons.


Almost any firearm can have a flash suppressor. Its a little fiddly but that is placed at the end of a barrel.

Banning a firearm because it has a flash suppressor is about as effective as banning one because it has a bayonet lug.

Oh, wait...
 
2013-01-15 03:47:23 PM

electronicmaji: BojanglesPaladin: I find it odd how many Farkers here are being derisive about any criticism of this legislation.

This bill has some SERIOUS problems, based on just the AP wire report of it. Not least of which is apprantly making it a criminal issue if a health care provider does not properly report someone as potentialy violent. And also apparantly empowering the police to go and confiscate guns from anyone a healthcare provider reports as a violence risk. No conviction, mind you, no due process. just a "health care professional" assesment and a report to the state.

Forget the guns, is THAT really something we WANT?

No way this will pass a court test as it is, but I find it disturbing to see so many people applauding a flagrant civil liberties violation.

I don't farking care anymore the citizens of our country should seek permission to even be allowed to leave their homes following Newtown.

This country is shiat full if shiatizens and they should all be nuked off the map. Especially the south.

Im defecting to russia and china and as a nuclear physicist am going to make the bomb that will kill you all

fark YOU AMERICA


Hey look!  It's exactly the kind of people that we don't want in this country!  You go on with your bad marshal law wanting self, and get the hell out.
 
2013-01-15 03:49:15 PM

queezyweezel: electronicmaji: BojanglesPaladin: I find it odd how many Farkers here are being derisive about any criticism of this legislation.

This bill has some SERIOUS problems, based on just the AP wire report of it. Not least of which is apprantly making it a criminal issue if a health care provider does not properly report someone as potentialy violent. And also apparantly empowering the police to go and confiscate guns from anyone a healthcare provider reports as a violence risk. No conviction, mind you, no due process. just a "health care professional" assesment and a report to the state.

Forget the guns, is THAT really something we WANT?

No way this will pass a court test as it is, but I find it disturbing to see so many people applauding a flagrant civil liberties violation.

I don't farking care anymore the citizens of our country should seek permission to even be allowed to leave their homes following Newtown.

This country is shiat full if shiatizens and they should all be nuked off the map. Especially the south.

Im defecting to russia and china and as a nuclear physicist am going to make the bomb that will kill you all

fark YOU AMERICA

Hey look!  It's exactly the kind of people that we don't want in this country!  You go on with your bad marshal law wanting self, and get the hell out.


fark you too you coont muzzling ass maggot
 
2013-01-15 03:50:48 PM

electronicmaji: fark you too you coont muzzling ass maggot


Muzzling a coont? I've never met one with teeth (yet). Seems that there could be a better usage of time.
 
2013-01-15 03:51:16 PM

electronicmaji: queezyweezel: electronicmaji: BojanglesPaladin: I find it odd how many Farkers here are being derisive about any criticism of this legislation.

This bill has some SERIOUS problems, based on just the AP wire report of it. Not least of which is apprantly making it a criminal issue if a health care provider does not properly report someone as potentialy violent. And also apparantly empowering the police to go and confiscate guns from anyone a healthcare provider reports as a violence risk. No conviction, mind you, no due process. just a "health care professional" assesment and a report to the state.

Forget the guns, is THAT really something we WANT?

No way this will pass a court test as it is, but I find it disturbing to see so many people applauding a flagrant civil liberties violation.

I don't farking care anymore the citizens of our country should seek permission to even be allowed to leave their homes following Newtown.

This country is shiat full if shiatizens and they should all be nuked off the map. Especially the south.

Im defecting to russia and china and as a nuclear physicist am going to make the bomb that will kill you all

fark YOU AMERICA

Hey look!  It's exactly the kind of people that we don't want in this country!  You go on with your bad marshal law wanting self, and get the hell out.

fark you too you coont muzzling ass maggot


I'm going to tell your parents that you're using the family computer without their supervision again. You're in big trouble young man.
 
2013-01-15 03:56:28 PM

electronicmaji: BojanglesPaladin: I find it odd how many Farkers here are being derisive about any criticism of this legislation.

This bill has some SERIOUS problems, based on just the AP wire report of it. Not least of which is apprantly making it a criminal issue if a health care provider does not properly report someone as potentialy violent. And also apparantly empowering the police to go and confiscate guns from anyone a healthcare provider reports as a violence risk. No conviction, mind you, no due process. just a "health care professional" assesment and a report to the state.

Forget the guns, is THAT really something we WANT?

No way this will pass a court test as it is, but I find it disturbing to see so many people applauding a flagrant civil liberties violation.

I don't farking care anymore the citizens of our country should seek permission to even be allowed to leave their homes following Newtown.

This country is shiat full if shiatizens and they should all be nuked off the map. Especially the south.

Im defecting to russia and china and as a nuclear physicist am going to make the bomb that will kill you all

fark YOU AMERICA


Ummm someone should report that poster before he shoots up a school....classic signs of an emotionally disturbed person.

You want people to under go mental evals.....man up and take responsibility and report this schmuck.

whos with me?


/crickets
//crickets
///amirite
 
2013-01-15 03:59:28 PM

flux: Philip Francis Queeg: And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?

Well, looking at it practically as an owner of an about-to-be-illegal weapon, let's say you're trying to modify it so that it's legal. You could get a new, non-adjustable stock without a pistol grip, and remove or disable the bayonet mount, but because this new law is "one-feature", your weapon is still illegal, because of the flash suppressor. If it's threaded, that's ok -- remove it. If it's fixed, you either have to have some kind of shroud welded around it or have it chopped off, which might make your barrel too short to be legal. Or, I guess you could spend a couple hundred bucks on a new barrel.

It also makes a lot of target handguns illegal. I dunno, overall, I don't have a lot of problems with this law, I guess. But I think the mag cap is the only really effective part -- the rest just severely inconveniences gun owners without changing the effectiveness of the weapon. I guess I think if you want legislation to pass, it should be simple and not overly-inconvenient for owners, like a flat-out mag limit, rather than "now you have to spend eight hundred dollars re-building your no-longer-legal rifle to make it into a legal rifle that shoots the same bullets at the same rate of fire, but has to be held slightly differently."


If you register it within the year, it wouldn't be illegal.
 
2013-01-15 04:03:40 PM

Mike_1962: flux: Philip Francis Queeg: And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?

Well, looking at it practically as an owner of an about-to-be-illegal weapon, let's say you're trying to modify it so that it's legal. You could get a new, non-adjustable stock without a pistol grip, and remove or disable the bayonet mount, but because this new law is "one-feature", your weapon is still illegal, because of the flash suppressor. If it's threaded, that's ok -- remove it. If it's fixed, you either have to have some kind of shroud welded around it or have it chopped off, which might make your barrel too short to be legal. Or, I guess you could spend a couple hundred bucks on a new barrel.

It also makes a lot of target handguns illegal. I dunno, overall, I don't have a lot of problems with this law, I guess. But I think the mag cap is the only really effective part -- the rest just severely inconveniences gun owners without changing the effectiveness of the weapon. I guess I think if you want legislation to pass, it should be simple and not overly-inconvenient for owners, like a flat-out mag limit, rather than "now you have to spend eight hundred dollars re-building your no-longer-legal rifle to make it into a legal rifle that shoots the same bullets at the same rate of fire, but has to be held slightly differently."

If you register it within the year, it wouldn't be illegal.


I haven't had time to read the full text.  Do they state how much the registration fees will be?
 
2013-01-15 04:13:09 PM
I honestly starting to wonder if there are any types of gun regulations in terms of possession that could at least be agreed to in some fashion. Every time someone brings up something about what guns the general public should have access to, all I hear is "Well criminals will obviously ignore that, so why should we cripple the ability of law abiding citizens?"


I just want to know where the damn lines are, if there are any lines.
 
2013-01-15 04:13:29 PM
the part that bothers me the most is the new "Office of Mental Hygiene". first thought. clean brain, as in brain washing dept??? hmm
 
2013-01-15 04:13:38 PM

Mike_1962: flux: Philip Francis Queeg: And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?

Well, looking at it practically as an owner of an about-to-be-illegal weapon, let's say you're trying to modify it so that it's legal. You could get a new, non-adjustable stock without a pistol grip, and remove or disable the bayonet mount, but because this new law is "one-feature", your weapon is still illegal, because of the flash suppressor. If it's threaded, that's ok -- remove it. If it's fixed, you either have to have some kind of shroud welded around it or have it chopped off, which might make your barrel too short to be legal. Or, I guess you could spend a couple hundred bucks on a new barrel.

It also makes a lot of target handguns illegal. I dunno, overall, I don't have a lot of problems with this law, I guess. But I think the mag cap is the only really effective part -- the rest just severely inconveniences gun owners without changing the effectiveness of the weapon. I guess I think if you want legislation to pass, it should be simple and not overly-inconvenient for owners, like a flat-out mag limit, rather than "now you have to spend eight hundred dollars re-building your no-longer-legal rifle to make it into a legal rifle that shoots the same bullets at the same rate of fire, but has to be held slightly differently."

If you register it within the year, it wouldn't be illegal.


Until they change the law to cover some other arbitrary feature next year.
 
2013-01-15 04:17:13 PM

BlueDWarrior: I honestly starting to wonder if there are any types of gun regulations in terms of possession that could at least be agreed to in some fashion. Every time someone brings up something about what guns the general public should have access to, all I hear is "Well criminals will obviously ignore that, so why should we cripple the ability of law abiding citizens?"


I just want to know where the damn lines are, if there are any lines.


You could always research the banning of fully automatic weapons (actual assault rifles), and grenades etc.
 
2013-01-15 04:18:43 PM

Mike_1962: If you register it within the year, it wouldn't be illegal.


Ok, thanks. I also did not have time to read the full text. I also see options for re-sale after it goes into effect. I think I'm mostly okay with it, then.
 
2013-01-15 04:19:01 PM
Abstaining -- courteously:

m.popstar.com
 
2013-01-15 04:23:01 PM

queezyweezel: BlueDWarrior: I honestly starting to wonder if there are any types of gun regulations in terms of possession that could at least be agreed to in some fashion. Every time someone brings up something about what guns the general public should have access to, all I hear is "Well criminals will obviously ignore that, so why should we cripple the ability of law abiding citizens?"


I just want to know where the damn lines are, if there are any lines.

You could always research the banning of fully automatic weapons (actual assault rifles), and grenades etc.


So are the lines in a good place, or can we afford to see them moved up some more (I dunno). There is too much cross-talk and I can't get a good handle on the situation.

Also why isn't there talk on increasing police presence and trying to figure out some real long-term urban renewal projects in areas of major urban blight to help deal with the persistent issue of gang violence. Do we just not care about gun violence when it's black and brown people killing each other?
 
2013-01-15 04:24:20 PM

queezyweezel: Mike_1962: flux: Philip Francis Queeg: And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?

Well, looking at it practically as an owner of an about-to-be-illegal weapon, let's say you're trying to modify it so that it's legal. You could get a new, non-adjustable stock without a pistol grip, and remove or disable the bayonet mount, but because this new law is "one-feature", your weapon is still illegal, because of the flash suppressor. If it's threaded, that's ok -- remove it. If it's fixed, you either have to have some kind of shroud welded around it or have it chopped off, which might make your barrel too short to be legal. Or, I guess you could spend a couple hundred bucks on a new barrel.

It also makes a lot of target handguns illegal. I dunno, overall, I don't have a lot of problems with this law, I guess. But I think the mag cap is the only really effective part -- the rest just severely inconveniences gun owners without changing the effectiveness of the weapon. I guess I think if you want legislation to pass, it should be simple and not overly-inconvenient for owners, like a flat-out mag limit, rather than "now you have to spend eight hundred dollars re-building your no-longer-legal rifle to make it into a legal rifle that shoots the same bullets at the same rate of fire, but has to be held slightly differently."

If you register it within the year, it wouldn't be illegal.

I haven't had time to read the full text.  Do they state how much the registration fees will be?


I just read the summary, in the article it doesn't say. Probably TBD.
 
2013-01-15 04:30:52 PM
register? sure, I dont mind that. Being forced to pay for it? Sorry fark that, I dont have the money.
 
2013-01-15 04:32:17 PM

sugar_fetus: cameroncrazy1984: sugar_fetus: Philip Francis Queeg:
And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?

What harm do flash suppressors do? Do they make the weapon more dangerous?

No?

Then why go through the idiocy of banning them?

They're not banning flash suppressors. They're banning weapons capable of taking flash suppressors, which is easier than naming off make and models of weapons.

Almost any firearm can have a flash suppressor. Its a little fiddly but that is placed at the end of a barrel.

Banning a firearm because it has a flash suppressor is about as effective as banning one because it has a bayonet lug.

Oh, wait...


You know who else hated it when Americans had bayonets?

i235.photobucket.com

/hot.
 
2013-01-15 04:35:26 PM

Skraeling: register? sure, I dont mind that. Being forced to pay for it? Sorry fark that, I dont have the money.


better do it. they want you on that list. why? don't ask, citizen, just do as you're told.
 
2013-01-15 04:40:26 PM

BlueDWarrior: I honestly starting to wonder if there are any types of gun regulations in terms of possession that could at least be agreed to in some fashion. Every time someone brings up something about what guns the general public should have access to, all I hear is "Well criminals will obviously ignore that, so why should we cripple the ability of law abiding citizens?"


I just want to know where the damn lines are, if there are any lines.


You'll notice that most people don't argue that point. Not because it is valid, but rather the exact opposite. It is an obvious logical fallacy that doesn't or at least shouldn't require a response. Oh, well, here goes a couple of points. Someone will become a criminal when they use a gun in a criminal way (assuming the absence of another crime.) The criminal to that point was a legal gun owner.

Advocating the position that a law is usless because criminals will not obey it is incorrect. Many criminals will obey it, at least in terms of usage, if not ownership since a law serves to deter a behaviour as well as to punish it.

Over time restrictions can significantly reduce the total number of illegal weapons through attrition if nothing else. This law unfortunately does not address a possible black market in weapons so the effects of attrition will be at best diluted by smuggling.
 
2013-01-15 04:43:51 PM

BlueDWarrior: So are the lines in a good place, or can we afford to see them moved up some more (I dunno). There is too much cross-talk and I can't get a good handle on the situation.


That's pretty much the opinion of the gun owners I know, myself included. The current laws basically say "full-auto bad, semi-auto ok" and that's been fine for decades.

Since semi-auto AR-15s and other guns some people call "assault weapons" are the most commonly owned firearm in the US and are widely used in competition and for other perfectly legitimate purposes, there's a lot of people who are not happy about proposed restrictions, particularly when rifles of any kind (ARs and the like being a subset) are used in about 3.7% of all firearms-related homicide. Statistically speaking, such guns are a very minor issue.

Also why isn't there talk on increasing police presence and trying to figure out some real long-term urban renewal projects in areas of major urban blight to help deal with the persistent issue of gang violence. Do we just not care about gun violence when it's black and brown people killing each other?

That's one of the things that I've been writing to my legislators about for years. That's one of the major things (the others being ending the War on Drugs and treating personal drug use like a public health issue instead of a crime and going after drug/gun traffickers with a vengeance) I think that can actually make a difference. Restricting guns with black plastic bits or the size of a box with a spring in it seems pretty pointless -- that horse has already left the metaphorical barn and it's not coming back. There's no real correlation between "strict gun laws" in the US and "less crime".

In short: the best way to reduce violent crime is to keep people from feeling they need to commit it. Healthy, stable, well-adjusted, and prosperous people don't commit violent crimes (or, if they do, it's a statistical rarity).
 
2013-01-15 04:43:53 PM

ThreeFootSmurf: the part that bothers me the most is the new "Office of Mental Hygiene". first thought. clean brain, as in brain washing dept??? hmm


Yeah, that's kind of Orwellian, gotta say.
 
2013-01-15 04:44:55 PM

Marine1: Philip Francis Queeg: queezyweezel: wee: (VI) A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, MUZZLE COMPENSATOR, OR THREADED BARREL DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, OR MUZZLE COMPENSATOR; Those retards don't even know what the fark a muzzle brake is...

I like the banning of flash suppressors....When in the history of EVER have civilian casualties been limited because the shooter was shooting at night, and people didn't know where the shots were coming from because they couldn't see the muzzle flash?  These kinds of feel-good gun control measures make me spit.

And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?

Flash suppressors don't just hide the flash from other people, they hide it from you. If you're waking up to someone in your house at 3:00 AM, and end up firing on that person, you can be temporarily blinded by muzzle flash. This is a problem when you're trying to control a threat.
Overall, it's not really a big deal to have one on a firearm, and they don't make a weapon any more or less lethal in the situations this legislation is meant to prevent. It's another example of people not knowing what they're dealing with when it comes to firearms.


Also muzzle breaks are used on some hunting rifles to manage recoil better.
 
2013-01-15 04:45:45 PM

Lost Thought 00: I think the bullet(s) you just fired at another human being with the intention of murdering them would have a bigger impact on your home defense situation than any temporary blindness


Nice weasel words, but absolutely correct on the intent part. I don't see why that's a problem.
 
wee [TotalFark]
2013-01-15 04:49:10 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Hunting rifles have no need for any of those things, thus a ban on the characteristics of a military-style weapon makes sense.


What does hunting have to do with anything at all?  That makes no sense at all.
 
2013-01-15 04:51:06 PM
The second amendment isn't to protect hunting...
 
2013-01-15 04:52:01 PM

heypete: BlueDWarrior: So are the lines in a good place, or can we afford to see them moved up some more (I dunno). There is too much cross-talk and I can't get a good handle on the situation.

That's pretty much the opinion of the gun owners I know, myself included. The current laws basically say "full-auto bad, semi-auto ok" and that's been fine for decades.

Since semi-auto AR-15s and other guns some people call "assault weapons" are the most commonly owned firearm in the US and are widely used in competition and for other perfectly legitimate purposes, there's a lot of people who are not happy about proposed restrictions, particularly when rifles of any kind (ARs and the like being a subset) are used in about 3.7% of all firearms-related homicide. Statistically speaking, such guns are a very minor issue.

Also why isn't there talk on increasing police presence and trying to figure out some real long-term urban renewal projects in areas of major urban blight to help deal with the persistent issue of gang violence. Do we just not care about gun violence when it's black and brown people killing each other?

That's one of the things that I've been writing to my legislators about for years. That's one of the major things (the others being ending the War on Drugs and treating personal drug use like a public health issue instead of a crime and going after drug/gun traffickers with a vengeance) I think that can actually make a difference. Restricting guns with black plastic bits or the size of a box with a spring in it seems pretty pointless -- that horse has already left the metaphorical barn and it's not coming back. There's no real correlation between "strict gun laws" in the US and "less crime".

In short: the best way to reduce violent crime is to keep people from feeling they need to commit it. Healthy, stable, well-adjusted, and prosperous people don't commit violent crimes (or, if they do, it's a statistical rarity).


Well put.
 
2013-01-15 04:52:05 PM

HotWingConspiracy: >GUNS AREN'T THE PROBLEM! MENTAL HEALTH! MENTAL HEAAAAALLLLLTH!

>>Ok, here are some ways to address that end of it. Actual preventative measures, not after the fact check ups to verify that a killer had issues.

>OMG LIBERTIES


I can't tell what you mean here. Can you clarify?
 
2013-01-15 04:52:29 PM

Thingster: Mike_1962: flux: Philip Francis Queeg: And what harm does banning flash suppressors do? Is there a reason you desire to be able to shoot at night without the flash being seen?

Well, looking at it practically as an owner of an about-to-be-illegal weapon, let's say you're trying to modify it so that it's legal. You could get a new, non-adjustable stock without a pistol grip, and remove or disable the bayonet mount, but because this new law is "one-feature", your weapon is still illegal, because of the flash suppressor. If it's threaded, that's ok -- remove it. If it's fixed, you either have to have some kind of shroud welded around it or have it chopped off, which might make your barrel too short to be legal. Or, I guess you could spend a couple hundred bucks on a new barrel.

It also makes a lot of target handguns illegal. I dunno, overall, I don't have a lot of problems with this law, I guess. But I think the mag cap is the only really effective part -- the rest just severely inconveniences gun owners without changing the effectiveness of the weapon. I guess I think if you want legislation to pass, it should be simple and not overly-inconvenient for owners, like a flat-out mag limit, rather than "now you have to spend eight hundred dollars re-building your no-longer-legal rifle to make it into a legal rifle that shoots the same bullets at the same rate of fire, but has to be held slightly differently."

If you register it within the year, it wouldn't be illegal.

Until they change the law to cover some other arbitrary feature next year.


Given that as a possibility, why would a group of elected reps spend the capital? Personally, I agree that a bayonet lug restriction is foolish and would remove it however, one of the points to legislation like this should be to removee some of the romance of gun ownership which is responsible at least in part for the prevalence of guns in your culture.
 
2013-01-15 04:53:10 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Hunting rifles have no need for any of those things


Says who?

What's wrong with an adjustable stock? That's a shooter-comfort/ergonomics thing. Same thing with the pistol grip. A muzzle brake helps reduce felt recoil, which is particularly useful with large-caliber hunting cartridges. Those are all ideal for hunting rifles and indeed, many hunting rifles come with such features.

Nearly all of the "military features" are in wide use on any number of common firearms, including those marketed towards hunters.

Of course, it's worth pointing out that most gun owners aren't hunters, and hunting isn't the only legitimate use of firearms -- recreational, sporting, and competitive shooting are perfectly valid uses of firearms. Many hunting firearms can be used for those purposes, but not all are particularly suited to those purposes.
 
2013-01-15 04:56:47 PM
The point is that people are upset and scared and we need to pass something NOW, with minimal review and no discussion of the implications of the law.
 
2013-01-15 05:01:17 PM

ko_kyi: The point is that people are upset and scared and we need to pass something NOW, with minimal review and no discussion of the implications of the law.


basically this, legislation will get passed that does nothing except cost more money and time.
 
2013-01-15 05:03:38 PM

chasd00: ko_kyi: The point is that people are upset and scared and we need to pass something NOW, with minimal review and no discussion of the implications of the law.

basically this, legislation will get passed that does nothing except cost more money and time.


"Something must be done! This is something, therefore it must be done!"
 
2013-01-15 05:04:57 PM

chasd00: basically this, legislation will get passed that does nothing except cost more money and time.


It does more than that. Don't forget blatant violation of the constitutional right to due process when a simple report form a "helathcare proffesional" can send the police to your home to confiscate every legal firearm you own.
 
2013-01-15 05:05:29 PM

chasd00: ko_kyi: The point is that people are upset and scared and we need to pass something NOW, with minimal review and no discussion of the implications of the law.

basically this, legislation will get passed that does nothing except cost more money and time.


actually it's worse than that because it provides a false sense of security
 
2013-01-15 05:08:03 PM
So would all the defenders of states rights please step up and defend the right of NYS to make its own laws?
 
2013-01-15 05:08:18 PM

heypete: chasd00: ko_kyi: The point is that people are upset and scared and we need to pass something NOW, with minimal review and no discussion of the implications of the law.

basically this, legislation will get passed that does nothing except cost more money and time.

"Something must be done! This is something, therefore it must be done!"


Holy underwear! Sheriff murdered! Innocent women and children blown to bits! We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!
 
2013-01-15 05:10:42 PM

Warlordtrooper: So would all the defenders of states rights please step up and defend the right of NYS to make its own laws?


I will.

Of course, the Second has been incorporated (McDonald v Chicago), so even States must abide by it.
 
2013-01-15 05:10:56 PM
So the take away from this thread is that when the anti-gun control folks said "do something about mental health and keep the guns away from the crazy people instead" after Sandy Hook, they were just completely full of shiat.
 
2013-01-15 05:12:14 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: So the take away from this thread is that when the anti-gun control folks said "do something about mental health and keep the guns away from the crazy people instead" after Sandy Hook, they were just completely full of shiat.


"do something about mental health and keep the guns away from the crazy people instead" != violating the 4th Amendment.
 
2013-01-15 05:17:19 PM

Warlordtrooper: So would all the defenders of states rights please step up and defend the right of NYS to make its own laws?


State Rights does not trump the Consititutional Rights. If this was not a federal protection - I would say go for it.
 
2013-01-15 05:19:51 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: So the take away from this thread is that when the anti-gun control folks said "do something about mental health and keep the guns away from the crazy people instead" after Sandy Hook, they were just completely full of shiat.


Just as applicable
 
2013-01-15 05:20:06 PM

sugar_fetus: Philip Francis Queeg: So the take away from this thread is that when the anti-gun control folks said "do something about mental health and keep the guns away from the crazy people instead" after Sandy Hook, they were just completely full of shiat.

"do something about mental health and keep the guns away from the crazy people instead" != violating the 4th Amendment.


Well, then what were you actually proposing?
 
2013-01-15 05:24:01 PM
nys

can't it just be NY? what other state does this bullshiat
 
2013-01-15 05:24:38 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: sugar_fetus: Philip Francis Queeg: So the take away from this thread is that when the anti-gun control folks said "do something about mental health and keep the guns away from the crazy people instead" after Sandy Hook, they were just completely full of shiat.

"do something about mental health and keep the guns away from the crazy people instead" != violating the 4th Amendment.

Well, then what were you actually proposing?


Smaller, pointed bills that weren't stuffed full of other crap that isn't wanted nor needed.  When you try and bundle everything into one bill, it becomes bloated, and a nightmare to pass.
 
2013-01-15 05:25:44 PM

queezyweezel: Philip Francis Queeg: sugar_fetus: Philip Francis Queeg: So the take away from this thread is that when the anti-gun control folks said "do something about mental health and keep the guns away from the crazy people instead" after Sandy Hook, they were just completely full of shiat.

"do something about mental health and keep the guns away from the crazy people instead" != violating the 4th Amendment.

Well, then what were you actually proposing?

Smaller, pointed bills that weren't stuffed full of other crap that isn't wanted nor needed.  When you try and bundle everything into one bill, it becomes bloated, and a nightmare to pass.


Address the mental health issue specifically. What,measures were the anti-gun control people supporting?
 
2013-01-15 05:32:09 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: queezyweezel: Philip Francis Queeg: sugar_fetus: Philip Francis Queeg: So the take away from this thread is that when the anti-gun control folks said "do something about mental health and keep the guns away from the crazy people instead" after Sandy Hook, they were just completely full of shiat.

"do something about mental health and keep the guns away from the crazy people instead" != violating the 4th Amendment.

Well, then what were you actually proposing?

Smaller, pointed bills that weren't stuffed full of other crap that isn't wanted nor needed.  When you try and bundle everything into one bill, it becomes bloated, and a nightmare to pass.

Address the mental health issue specifically. What,measures were the anti-gun control people supporting?


Most of my hunting/shooting friends support mandatory mental health evaluations, more thorough background checks, and closing the gun show loopholes.  We also support mandatory proficiency and safety tests.  If you own a gun, you better know how to safely operate it.
 
2013-01-15 05:32:17 PM

heypete: chasd00: ko_kyi: The point is that people are upset and scared and we need to pass something NOW, with minimal review and no discussion of the implications of the law.

basically this, legislation will get passed that does nothing except cost more money and time.

"Something must be done! This is something, therefore it must be done!"


THERE IS A TIME TO ACT, AND A TIME TO THINK.
GENTLEMEN, THIS IS NO TIME TO THINK.
 
2013-01-15 05:32:26 PM

cameroncrazy1984: queezyweezel: wee: (VI) A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, MUZZLE COMPENSATOR, OR THREADED BARREL DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, OR MUZZLE COMPENSATOR; Those retards don't even know what the fark a muzzle brake is...

I like the banning of flash suppressors....When in the history of EVER have civilian casualties been limited because the shooter was shooting at night, and people didn't know where the shots were coming from because they couldn't see the muzzle flash?  These kinds of feel-good gun control measures make me spit.

Look, the point of it is to ban weapons that are military in nature. Hunting rifles have no need for any of those things, thus a ban on the characteristics of a military-style weapon makes sense.


Says who buttercup?

Mossber ATR
Savage 110F

Just 2 off the top of my head.

I'm happy with Canada's 10rd restriction for handguns, would like to see the same for long guns (currently 5rds for all semi autos except .22lrs).

I also wouldn't mind a limited, regulated concealed carry system.

For anyone who thinks that banning all guns is the only solution I invite you to take a look at the the Czech Republic. Very liberal gun laws, similar to the US, (I think). And yet their rate of gun related deaths per capita is a fraction of the Unites States', and even less than Canada's.

United States 10.2/100000
Canada 2.13/100000
Czech Republic 1.76/100000

Sources

Link

Link

Obviously the streets of the Czech Republic aren't being choked with the blood of innocents, even though they have a liberal (compared to Canada) attitude. So culture has to have SOMETHING to do with it.

Anyways, make of it what you will, I think that both sides are fear mongering and denigrating the other side for their own purposes. Just becuase you want to have/carry a gun with a 10-15 rd mag, does not mean that you are a pants pissing coward, gun fetishist. And just because you want to take reasonable, well thought out steps to ensure the safety of the general public, does not mean that you are a facist, orwellian overlord who doesn't understand firearms. Of course if people on both sides of the debate would stop fulfilling these cairactures, then your chances of a rational discussion would improve.
 
2013-01-15 05:34:08 PM

HeadLever: Warlordtrooper: So would all the defenders of states rights please step up and defend the right of NYS to make its own laws?

State Rights does not trump the Consititutional Rights. If this was not a federal protection - I would say go for it.


Do crazy people still have Constitutional Rights? Its one thing if you have been convicted of a crime but how can anyone advocate taking away guns from a crazy person if that person hasn't been convicted of a crime yet?
 
Displayed 50 of 231 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report